Science fails to exclude God

I believe science should leave the possibility that a creator exists for the sake of not knowing definitively. It really comes down to how mainstream
science would define a god/creator. They seem more to reject the existing definition held by most religions.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god/creator etc. I know for a fact I don't believe it nor accept it but I have to be honest and say that
without being able to define something absolute I cannot absolutely disregard the potential for it either. It's so complicated to balance and
acknowledge in certain terms.

Huh ! That's got to be one of the most sensible evaluations I've come across with in these confines.

That's what the main part of your opposition on this thread has been saying from the start. It's called an agnostic position.

Whereas your own position, a gnostic one, has been to claim you know 'absolutes' (without bothering much to demonstrate WHY your claims are valid).

I am not anything of the sort. I do not believe in any form of god/creator but the possibility that there may be something yet defined that we can
explain should be a possibility. Also note, Unlike most atheists I know, I do not think that people of religion are out of there minds anymore than
those in the scientific community who reject the notion. I am solid and firm on my own stance of the matter but because I can accept the possibility
that there are things beyond my understanding and being open minded to most things does not give people a right to label me something I am not. We as
a species have a perception that has barely scratched the surface yet. It is evolving. I think it's unwise to dismiss something as impossible just
because we cannot understand it. It's a love hate relationship believers and non-believers have toward sme because of my stance on things. It's by
no means simple nor easy to balance. It's a delicate matter for me as much as others but I stay true to my views on a personal level for my life. I
see nothing wrong with be open to things in the broader scheme of it all.

["I do not believe in any form of god/creator but the possibility that there may be something yet defined that we can explain should be a
possibility."]

That's what formally is called an agnostic position. Acknowledging that evidence either way is inconclusive, so options are 'open'.

Quote: ["Also note, Unlike most atheists I know, I do not think that people of religion are out of there minds anymore than those in the scientific
community who reject the notion."]

There are religions, and then there are religions. Some of them quite sensible in many ways (at least when they don't try to highjack science or mess
with politics), and the majority of religionists are decent people, who don't have a compulsive need to enforce their opinions an mankind.

Quote: ["I am solid and firm on my own stance of the matter but because I can accept the possibility that there are things beyond my understanding
and being open minded to most things does not give people a right to label me something I am not."]

Ofcourse it's a sound attitude to accept, that mankind hasn't all the answers. The troublemakers are those who (without anything but blind faith in
some ideology) want to force their ideas on mankind (that goes for politics as well as religion).

Quote: ["I think it's unwise to dismiss something as impossible just because we cannot understand it."]

We have the range of 'approximate truths'. Some things are close to being 100% certain (at least inside cosmos), some are only speculative or
hypothetical.

Quote: [" It's a love hate relationship believers and non-believers have toward sme because of my stance on things. It's by no means simple nor
easy to balance. It's a delicate matter for me as much as others but I stay true to my views on a personal level for my life. I see nothing wrong
with be open to things in the broader scheme of it all."]

The personal perspective of the individual human being can vary from simple pragmatism (based on mundane preferences) to very complex reasoning chains
or blind faith. The best answer to such a divergency is to balance freedom and obligations in a formalized consensus compromise.

In the context of a public forum, the wonderful concept free speech is one of the 'freedom' benefits. But free speech is not a one-way process,
everyone joining has to accept 'taking' as well as 'giving', and if somebody is to sensitive to take the sometimes heated exchange, a
'protected' website for only 'believers' (in whatever) is probably a better choice. (The last sentence was general, NOT a criticism of you.)

For those prepared to venture beyond the endless debate of words that goes nowhere concerning the existence of God, try studying REAL, IRREFUTABLE,
MATHEMATICAL evidence at: smphillips.8m.com...
The problem with having philosophical/religious beliefs is that they cause intellectual entrenchments that hinder personal progress to the truth. If
you want to go beyond the uncertainties of opinion and belief and encounter the amazing interface between science and the transcendental, study the
pioneering and paradigm-challenging research at this website.

You seem o take from it what you will. I will not debate what I know to be true with you. We can agree to disagree. I am also aware of my own
statements. I welcome and encourage all thought on such matters but regardless of whether you want to accept that I am an atheist and misunderstand my
meaning in above posts, I am not agnostic. Quoting my own words will not change that to suit your perception but then it is your reality as is my
own.

Yet here we are co-existing. On opposite sides of a subject and yet we are both relevant and valid from our side of things. I truly and sincerely
apologize if I was not able to better articulate my wording so that you understood in terms I intended rather than how you have taken them.

Now see, That's what I was trying to get at. The paradigms are so entangling due to philosophical differences. I think both believers and
non-believers have to be prepared that there may be more to it on both sides and that it may be simpler than we suspect. I pose the question as an
athiest that since I do not believe in god or anyting of the sort, what if one day by the standards I have based my onw personal views on prove
otherwise, how can one prepare fo such a thing. Will I be so closed minded as to not even accept the possibility that creation may be entirely beyond
the realm of our understanding right now but that perhaps both science and faith based process may bring us to a more tangible understanding of it
all.

Originally posted by micpsi
For those prepared to venture beyond the endless debate of words that goes nowhere concerning the existence of God, try studying REAL, IRREFUTABLE,
MATHEMATICAL evidence at: smphillips.8m.com...
The problem with having philosophical/religious beliefs is that they cause intellectual entrenchments that hinder personal progress to the truth. If
you want to go beyond the uncertainties of opinion and belief and encounter the amazing interface between science and the transcendental, study the
pioneering and paradigm-challenging research at this website.

You are not using the word 'transcendental' in its usual meaning, and the link didn't relate to such either. But it might be interesting for those
oriented towards sacred geometry etc.

You seem o take from it what you will. I will not debate what I know to be true with you. We can agree to disagree. I am also aware of my own
statements. I welcome and encourage all thought on such matters but regardless of whether you want to accept that I am an atheist and misunderstand my
meaning in above posts, I am not agnostic. Quoting my own words will not change that to suit your perception but then it is your reality as is my
own.

Yet here we are co-existing. On opposite sides of a subject and yet we are both relevant and valid from our side of things. I truly and sincerely
apologize if I was not able to better articulate my wording so that you understood in terms I intended rather than how you have taken them.

You and I don't seem to get across to each other. To the best of my knowledge, we agree on most. It may be the terminology confusing you.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Science has already proved God's existence, people just chose to use a different title.

edit on 4-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no
reason given)

Are you talking 'intelligent design' or quantum-religion here?

Or do you have some new and evidenced information, which is not a rehashing of already repudiated pseudo-science.

I'm asking, because I try to keep up with this kind of stuff, and your claim above of REAL scientific proof of 'god' has escaped my attention
completely. Just as Armageddon usually does, when it regularly takes place. I ALWAYS miss Armageddon.

Now Bog you and I both know, you can't miss armageddon. For crips sakes, it isn't something you will have to be on time for, or journey too. No set
time for the happening. When armageddon happens there isn't anyone oblivios to it. Everyone will know what's up. Accordingly. No promotions or tickets
to buy. No invitations will be sent.

Now Bog you and I both know, you can't miss armageddon. For crips sakes, it isn't something you will have to be on time for, or journey too. No set
time for the happening. When armageddon happens there isn't anyone oblivios to it. Everyone will know what's up. Accordingly. No promotions or
tickets to buy. No invitations will be sent.

edit on 4-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Something which never has stopped various kinds of christians to be dead sure about the future details. But then THESE christians are ofcourse not the
TRUE christians.

TRUE christians being a rare and invisible group, never manifesting in a convincing way at least on this forum, where we otherwise meet all kinds from
all camps.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Science isn't even saying they disprove god's existence...scientists say there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE suggesting he/she/it exits, which is 100%
accurate.

Religious people on the other hand make grand claims without ever backing it up with facts

I know science as a whole, isn't in some meditative state, concentrating on disproving God's existence. I know that no matter how the heading reads.
"The religious people " arn't the only ones on this planet who speculate FYI. And of course there is no objective evidence for God's existence in
the way you demand it. The Bible gives
no mathmatical equasion ( that I know of ). It tells of a place where he is, but there is no OE for that either. So what good does it do you, to
harp
on this one point in every thread you join. You're wasting your time and everyone elses. Asking for something God has not left lying around. It's
more important to him for some reason, that you believe by faith. Or the evidence of his handywork. He hasn't left anything that puts his existence
over the top and that's obvious because if he had this would be an entirely different world. For one thing everyone would believe.

Or perhaps you but no matter. We have good intentions here. At least I think we do. No harm, no fowl. People cannot always agree with one another or
communicate everything they desire to. We make the efforts and that more than some do.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.